You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bfoster116 's review for:
The Case for Christ
by Lee Strobel
Strobel is a very good writer, and presents some great arguments in this book. My problem with it is the fact that Strobel presents this book as an objective, court-case style investigation that should present ALL the evidence you need to come to a particular conclusion.
In a typical court case you'd expect testimony and evidence from both the plaintiff and the defendant and the jury or judge decides based on the evidence presented from both sides. If the Case for Christ is really set up this way, the problem is he only presents arguments and evidence for one side. For example, if Strobel is curious about how the Jesus Seminar presents the Historical Jesus, he should probably seek a professor or academician who is a part of the Jesus Seminar and present their arguments. Instead, he gets testimony from someone who already disagrees with the findings of the Jesus Seminar and only represents that side of the argument. How is that an objective approach?
I have no problem with Strobel interviewing scholars that agree with his opinion. He speaks to world renowned scholars who are brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable. But why not also be willing to interview scholars who are critical and skeptics? He should be able to present both sides and defend his argument and opinions and try to convince others to do the same. Based on factors like this, this book turned out to be a work of apologetics and not an objective investigation as Strobel presented it to be. That's fine, but would rather Strobel be up front about that. Good book but could be stronger with a wider range of arguments and deeper evidence.
In a typical court case you'd expect testimony and evidence from both the plaintiff and the defendant and the jury or judge decides based on the evidence presented from both sides. If the Case for Christ is really set up this way, the problem is he only presents arguments and evidence for one side. For example, if Strobel is curious about how the Jesus Seminar presents the Historical Jesus, he should probably seek a professor or academician who is a part of the Jesus Seminar and present their arguments. Instead, he gets testimony from someone who already disagrees with the findings of the Jesus Seminar and only represents that side of the argument. How is that an objective approach?
I have no problem with Strobel interviewing scholars that agree with his opinion. He speaks to world renowned scholars who are brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable. But why not also be willing to interview scholars who are critical and skeptics? He should be able to present both sides and defend his argument and opinions and try to convince others to do the same. Based on factors like this, this book turned out to be a work of apologetics and not an objective investigation as Strobel presented it to be. That's fine, but would rather Strobel be up front about that. Good book but could be stronger with a wider range of arguments and deeper evidence.